Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class

[Adami]

I've been thinking about this topic recently. Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their “loving commitment” criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out “marriages” between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call “marriage.” For someone could always argue that even the “loving commitment” criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of “same-sex marriage” also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of “marriage.” Therefore, their position is incoherent.

Let me know what you think.

Strictly about the whole animal, corpse thing; marriage is usually defined as mutual love. There is no mutual love between humans and animals or humans and corpses. Regarding polygymy and incest, those are honestly amendments to the definition as opposed to aspects of the definition.

[Sigz]

I've been thinking about this topic recently. Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their “loving commitment” criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out “marriages” between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call “marriage.” For someone could always argue that even the “loving commitment” criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of “same-sex marriage” also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of “marriage.” Therefore, their position is incoherent.

Let me know what you think.

  Holy strawmen batman.

For one I don't really have a problem with polygamous and/or incestuous marriages. I mean, incestuous marriages can bring on issues of consent (depending on the relationship) and the health of any children involved, but in principle I see no reason to make it illegal. They're going to be banging anyways, marriage doesn't really change anything there.

Second, I don't give a shit if a guy wants to marry his dog (though animal cruelty could come into effect...), his dead girlfriend, or his car either, but that's besides the point. No one has said the sole criteria is that the people be in love, they've simply said that the criteria should be that they're consenting adults - note that in none of the other examples you gave were consenting adults involved. This objection is simply silly - legally speaking (which is really the only thing that's in quesion here), what would a marriage between a live person and a corpse even entail?

[jammindude]

To play devil's advocate... 

Who are we to say that an animal is incapable of "mutual love"?  Can that be proven?? 

[flame suit on]

[Adami]

To play devil's advocate... 

Who are we to say that an animal is incapable of "mutual love"?  Can that be proven?? 

[flame suit on]

First off, the burden of proof is on the positive statement, not the negative. Second an animal cannot consent, that is proven by the fact that an animal cannot consent.

[jammindude]

To play devil's advocate... 

Who are we to say that an animal is incapable of "mutual love"?  Can that be proven?? 

[flame suit on]

First off, the burden of proof is on the positive statement, not the negative. Second an animal cannot consent, that is proven by the fact that an animal cannot consent.

I actually agree...   I just think that given enough time, lawyers can make *anything* ambiguous.  You honestly mean to tell me you havn't heard of dumber things in the field of law??   And think of anything that humans thought was stupid 50 years ago that are commonplace now.   I mean....just as a for instance.  Try going back 50 years and telling someone that "in the future", we've discovered that a child not being able to sit still was called ADD and was treated as a medical condition.    My intention is not to paint exact correlations...just general principals with a broad brush stroke.   (like I said, I agree with you)

[Adami]

I'm not even sure what your point is. Have dumb things in the past happened in the field of the law? Well hell yea, that's what helps define humans, doing stupid things. Does this have anything to do with homosexual marriage? No.

[jammindude]

Just that I agree that the thought of animal's being capable of "mutual love" being rather silly...but that never stopped anyone. 

But your right...I'm probably getting too broad and slightly off topic.  I just thought it was relevant.

[Adami]

Just that I agree that the thought of animal's being capable of "mutual love" being rather silly...but that never stopped anyone. 

But your right...I'm probably getting too broad and slightly off topic.  I just thought it was relevant.

I gotcha. Problem is animal/human marriage has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. The idea that it is in any way related or some how causal with some slippery slope argument is just silly.

[jammindude]

Ya...but what was silly 50 years ago?  *THAT* was my point. 

EDIT:   Honestly...I'm not *really* being terribly serious...but I also think that (as silly as my point is) that it does have *some* relevance.

[Adami]

Ya...but what was silly 50 years ago?

Blacks and whites getting married. Good thing we didn't let THAT happen.

[Sigz]

Ya...but what was silly 50 years ago?

Blacks and whites getting married. Good thing we didn't let THAT happen.

There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white, or a rape.

[jammindude]

Ya...but what was silly 50 years ago?

Blacks and whites getting married. Good thing we didn't let THAT happen.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.  And again, let me underline that I AGREE WITH YOU.     Somethings are relative to the time frame.   At that time, alot of people thought that it was an abomination (something I disagree with)...now it's acceptable (something I do agree with)...but that doesn't mean that something I have a *different* opinion of couldn't be considered *just* as stupid now, and *just* as acceptable later. 

The simple answer is that I'm getting metaphysical...to some lame degree....I guess....just to be some kind of comical version of annoying (bazinga)...but I might be missing the mark in typeface. 

[7StringedBeast]

The fact is, there still has not been one argument against legalized gay marriage that isn't pure discrimination, religion driven, or not some slippery slope argument.  There has still been no logical, lawful explanation to why in the United States of America, gays should not be able to marry each other.  Just the simple fact that people have a problem with two humans who love each other and want to be married, is beyond me.  Equal rights, for all men and women are created equal.  No one's rights are taken away by gay marriage.  Only if it is withheld are rights taken away. 

[SeRoX]

Wow @omega's post. 

Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life? But honestly, never saw it that way.  The fact is one's problem becomes world's problem. But does it make a sense? No at all.

[snapple]

Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs and I'm not even saying that it's right. But once one has a portion of their needs in order, they start looking into other people's shit. It isn't right.

There is a Christian marriage, but marriage has been around before Jesus and in areas of the world that wouldn't hear about Jesus for many years. I personally feel that true love has the presence of God in it. But, I'm not going to say "You're not in love, you're gay. God wouldn't approve." Because I'm not going to judge people. It isn't my place - and chances are I'd be wrong.

[7StringedBeast]

Whether you judge people who are gay or not is your own prerogative.  But we shouldn't be making laws that say gays can't marry just because of religion. 

The other thing that I think is funny, is the people who say we should have laws based on Christian religion are typically very against other countries that have laws strictly because of the Islamic religion.

[kirksnosehair]

Wow @omega's post. 

Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life? But honestly, never saw it that way.  The fact is one's problem becomes world's problem. But does it make a sense? No at all.

When you have no argument (and he doesn't have an argument) then you just use provocative nonsense to distract.  Note where the discussion went after those comments.  Off topic.  It's a classic tactic. 

[ZBomber]

I've been thinking about this topic recently. Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their “loving commitment” criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out “marriages” between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call “marriage.” For someone could always argue that even the “loving commitment” criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of “same-sex marriage” also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of “marriage.” Therefore, their position is incoherent.

Let me know what you think.

Are you honestly drawing parallels between homosexual marriage and bestiality/necrophilia again?

[Chino]

The fact is, there still has not been one argument against legalized gay marriage that isn't pure discrimination, religion driven, or not some slippery slope argument.  There has still been no logical, lawful explanation to why in the United States of America, gays should not be able to marry each other.  Just the simple fact that people have a problem with two humans who love each other and want to be married, is beyond me.  Equal rights, for all men and women are created equal.  No one's rights are taken away by gay marriage.  Only if it is withheld are rights taken away.

One of the biggest arguments I have is explaining it to children. A women I work with always says "I don't want to explain to my child that a man can love another man". It makes me sick. Maybe you shouldn't have raised them to think that love could only be between opposite sexes.

[SeRoX]

Yeah, I agree.

I do not think it is directly related to the topic but part of it tells us "we" spend our times to think people's choices, livings and problems and make them world's matter. But why? Personally I don't give a damn.

Let's live on, we already have our own problems.

[7StringedBeast]

Yeah, I agree.

I do not think it is directly related to the topic but part of it tells us "we" spend our times to think people's choices, livings and problems and make them world's matter. But why? Personally I don't give a damn.

Let's live on, we already have our own problems.

This idea is so simple, yet so true.  It is actually an extremely strong point.

[antigoon]

The fact is, there still has not been one argument against legalized gay marriage that isn't pure discrimination, religion driven, or not some slippery slope argument.  There has still been no logical, lawful explanation to why in the United States of America, gays should not be able to marry each other.  Just the simple fact that people have a problem with two humans who love each other and want to be married, is beyond me.  Equal rights, for all men and women are created equal.  No one's rights are taken away by gay marriage.  Only if it is withheld are rights taken away.

One of the biggest arguments I have is explaining it to children. A women I work with always says "I don't want to explain to my child that a man can love another man". It makes me sick. Maybe you shouldn't have raised them to think that love could only be between opposite sexes.

Louis CK has a funny bit about this in one of his standup specials.

[yeshaberto]

I am no more bothered by this than I am that it is lawful for a man and a woman to cohabitate outside of marriage.
I believe God's plan that he created the sexual relationship for husband and wife is crystal clear. 
It disappoints me that our culture does not see this mandate and hence the sexual revolution.
But I do not count it my responsibility to seek to enforce laws against cohabitation (or homosexual marriage), but I do count it my responsibility to point people to the wisdom of God's law and to exhort those who claim to follow God's law but ignore it.

[SeRoX]

In that matter, blame mothers and fathers! They are the ones who keep having homosexual children. 

[Rick]

In our 12th Grade Scripture class every Friday, we get the desks in a circle and write down questions and pass them in and they get randomly distributed among the students and they pose the question they received to another classmate

Yes, it is wrong. Homosexuality is a result of sin, so if a Christian doesn't take issue with it, then they are on the side of sin, so they are in the wrong.

WTF? Really - that's allowed in schools unchallenged? Fucking absurd.

Anyway, I'm a total atheist and bisexual (and I'm also a historian who's seen clearly how Christian attitudes and ideas have been shaped by man over the centuries), so it's pretty obvious what my stance is without even having to bother articulating it; I don't really feel any need to quote Biblical passages to prove what attitudes are the 'correct' one for a Christian to take as I don't think anyone should be forming their personal moral and value systems based on a really old fictional book written by humans*. I don't beleive in any sort of deity or spiritualism, good/evil, universal concepts of right/wrong, or the concept of afterlife or sin. I don't agree with gender binaries (gender's performative, sex is biological) or binaries of sexuality either (see the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale - everyone's probably a bit gay), and I'd much rather people with a predilection for non-monogamy engaged in honest consensual polyamoury than lying and cheating. I much prefer the Kantian categorical imperative to Jesus' Golden Rule.

If people are gonna bandy around lines about 'gay genes' and 'choice' and 'sin' in relation to homosexuality, they're an intolerant fool in my eyes who deserves no respect from me. If people really loved Jesus and his teachings as much as they claim to, they'd recognise the hypocrisy of hating on their fellow man for reasons that the person probably spent years of their life trying to fight and not admit to anyone simply out of that fear of intolerant attitudes from other people. If people are happy and everyone has informed consent, then all is good.



* (fair enough, some people are happy believing in stuff - including some of my very good friends - each to their own if it makes ya happy, just don't proselytise around me, and don't use scripture to justify being an asshole to people / bend passages to reinforce some shitty worldview and then expect me to accept it as a totally valid reason for having that worldview - if you want to be a nice, open-minded and tolerant person, then do that - in my mind you don't need faith to do that. If you want to be a cunt, then do that too - just don't try and convince me I can't protest against said cuntishness because a book says it's OK)

[hefdaddy42]

Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech.  There is no reason to be so abrasive here.

[bosk1]

Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech.  There is no reason to be so abrasive here.

This.  Opposing views are not necessarily "hate," and do not need to be responded to in that kind of tone.

[Rick]

Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech.  There is no reason to be so abrasive here.

This.  Opposing views are not necessarily "hate," and do not need to be responded to in that kind of tone.

That's not me being abrasive. That's just how I speak. All it basically says is "I'm atheist and think that people should be nice to each other whatever beliefs they have".

[bosk1]

Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech.  There is no reason to be so abrasive here.

This.  Opposing views are not necessarily "hate," and do not need to be responded to in that kind of tone.

That's not me being abrasive. That's just how I speak. All it basically says is "I'm atheist and think that people should be nice to each other whatever beliefs they have".

  It came off as much more abrasive in the first post than what you just said.  I don't think either hef or I are saying you necessarily intended it to be that way, but please just try to be aware of how it came across, okay?

Oh, and welcome back.  Where you been, man?

[Rick]

Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech.  There is no reason to be so abrasive here.

This.  Opposing views are not necessarily "hate," and do not need to be responded to in that kind of tone.

That's not me being abrasive. That's just how I speak. All it basically says is "I'm atheist and think that people should be nice to each other whatever beliefs they have".

  It came off as much more abrasive in the first post than what you just said.  I don't think either hef or I are saying you necessarily intended it to be that way, but please just try to be aware of how it came across, okay?

Oh, and welcome back.  Where you been, man?

I'm aware I do use fairly strong language - it's got me in trouble before with people who don't know me very well When ya get past the fact I litter things with beautifully British profanities and state things in a matter-of-fact way when in fact they're simply my opinions, and I think that as opinions they can be disagreed-with and challenged, because that's all in the nature of dialectical debate and ensures anything I say can be subject to Popper's Falsification

Been lurking around, I just don't post much on forums any more as they tend to be time-consuming. My post in this thread was my 4th post here in 18 months, hah. Hello!

[Ben_Jamin]

Whether you judge people who are gay or not is your own prerogative.  But we shouldn't be making laws that say gays can't marry just because of religion. 

The other thing that I think is funny, is the people who say we should have laws based on Christian religion are typically very against other countries that have laws strictly because of the Islamic religion.

My god, this. I would think that's hypocritical, you want people to believe your spiritual and good hearted yet shun almost everything other cultures/religions believe. Guess it is true the devil has manipulated the Bibles words.

[Omega]

Wow @omega's post. 

Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life? But honestly, never saw it that way.  The fact is one's problem becomes world's problem. But does it make a sense? No at all.

When you have no argument (and he doesn't have an argument) then you just use provocative nonsense to distract.  Note where the discussion went after those comments.  Off topic.  It's a classic tactic.

If you had actually bothered to read what I posted, you would have noticed that it was, in fact, an argument.

[ehra]

It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.

[kirksnosehair]

Wow @omega's post. 

Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life? But honestly, never saw it that way.  The fact is one's problem becomes world's problem. But does it make a sense? No at all.

When you have no argument (and he doesn't have an argument) then you just use provocative nonsense to distract.  Note where the discussion went after those comments.  Off topic.  It's a classic tactic.

If you had actually bothered to read what I posted, you would have noticed that it was, in fact, an argument.

It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.

[Omega]

It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.

"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."

What part of this do you not agree with?